Thursday, December 10, 2015

My summary of that exchange is that I asked you to defend your position and you succeeded. That is rare.

I'm not suggesting the U.S. should allow Muslims to immigrate at this point in history. I'm just trying to find a market price at which folks would agree the risk is worth the benefit, as they see it. You see no benefit in religious tolerance (in this specific context) and I judge that to be a credible and consistent point of view.

Rare.

To be clear, I see no way we could keep the risk to 100 terror deaths per year with continued Muslim immigration. So my price can't be met.

We end up at the same place. I priced it differently but neither of us wanted the deal.

I concur with his conclusion. We place different values, as measured in American lives, on the principle of religious freedom in the USA. But because he correctly recognizes that there is no way to keep the risk below the price he is willing to pay - which, contra my assumption, turned out to be his actual position on the matter - he ended up on the same place that I did.

Which is to say that Muslim immigration should be banned on the basis of the tangible risk it poses to the lives of Americans.

A lot of people just don't know, but they know something isn't right. Its all, Sammir seems like a solid guy, he can't be one of those extremist. So I have had some success with Scott Adams risk-assessment approach. Something like

"There are 2.5 million of them in the US; they are 15-20% of the prison population, just on the terror side of things they have killed 5000 Americans, done billions of property damage including to our military headquarters, and were used by the government to create the TSA costing us another $10 billion a year and massively inconveniencing travel within the US. With all that suffering we probably should be able to pin point the tangible advantage of inviting them in, right?"

But then there are all those "There are five lights" guys including Zuckerberg who I am presuming is promising to censor FB from hate facts to prevent feelbadz. Good to see him playing the dad card five minutes after she was born. Of course his family won't ever have to step foot into a government run disability center so what does he care.

I was thinking simply do unto all Muslims as all Saudi Arabians do unto all Christians. Quid pro quo. How many Christian Cathedrals in Arabia. There should be exactly the same number of Mosques in North America/ Europe/ Australia/ New Zealand/ Great Britaian. Quid pro quo. The centre of Islam displays it's pluralism to the entire world - let us at the very least, reflect their exact levels of tolerance.

two. Put personal guaranteeship on every advocate of open borders. For every rape murder honour killing genital mutilation enslavement committed by an immigrant within two generations exact proportionate responsibility from the open borders advocates. Let them be guarantors in reverse lottery.

Yes this is pie in the sky, but its opening gambit negotiations in all rational responses.

Finally. Only a mad man tries to entertain the legitimacy of two mutually exclusive claims. All SJW are at least that insane.

In the SJW lexicon Christians are already banned so there's nothing to lose not dealing with SJW claims. ex. The Armenian genocide doesn't exist. There are no Christian refugees from Syria. Piss Christ Versus a Mohammad cartoon.The refugee program is 100 percent skewed to Muslim. Christians are already banned from public debate. Chaplains who can't mention Jesus but have to accommodate for other faiths. etc etc etc.

"If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?"

There are times to enact laws and times to repeal them my friend. The beautiful thing about this is Trump may not be able to ban all Muslims from entering but he can revoke visa status from every Muslim country in one day without the approval of Congress. Thereby, effectively halting all Muslim immigration.

I submit the one death was Aurelie Chatelain. Because of that one single woman. And only one example is all it takes. Europe should demosque until hell freezes over or Hillsong leads worship at a Christian Cathedral built next to the Kaaba.

I wish the anti-semites would stop chasing rabbits, but that is what they do chase rabbits.

Simply and plainly put, anti-white rhetoric and group harm aimed at whites (genocide by law) is not going to be popular going forward. It might have some allure with the mentally/emotionally damaged or the low IQ no hopers but those types make good slaves or fertilizer, who cares.

2. As far as Christians are concerned, "In the world you will have tribulation". We are to accept persecution as part of the package. Not provoke it. Not court it. But if we are persecuted for the sake of Christ, that's cause for rejoicing and reward in heaven. So no worries there.

So, short answer: I don't think we can "ensure" anything, but who can?

@4 Will Best:But then there are all those "There are five lights" guys including Zuckerberg who I am presuming is promising to censor FB from hate facts to prevent feelbadz.Saw that, he should go up to a bunch of those moslims he loves so much and share the luv!Perhaps if he were living where he belongs, in his homeland, he would actually understand the truth about them.

And Whitey McWhite, if you pull that sort of crap again, you'll lose the entire comment for the sake of an off-topic parenthetical. Don't try to "sneak things in". All that will happen is that you'll get spammed.

Dwelling on the Adams question a bit more...my initial reaction was that the test was wrong--the question should have been how many of *your* immediate friends and family would you accept in the name of religious tolerance. Asking how many stranger deaths would you accept is akin to trying to ascertain the market price of a government cheese by looking at ghetto rat consumption rates.

But this is wrong, and indicative of how deeply the poz runs even in my own thoughts. Each is a piece of the main, a part of the whole and all that.

In summary: for all the witnesses professional and casual.You don't do deals with Islam, nor any devil, personal or corporate.The British Navy and US Marines largely exist simply to kill Muslims.Let's not mince words.Killers who don't discriminate can't be individually identified. There isn't time nor resources. There is an economics to saving lives.Economics demands a policy. You know what to do. Demosque, the sooner, the safer.

What bothers me is that he is willing to sell a hundred lives for muslim inclusion. I don't care if, in the end, he agreed. He is so out of step that he needs to be beaten and hung like any other who would sell someone else's life for his feelings of superiority. Fuck him and the muslims he rode in on. And screw you for letting him get away with it.

@11 "The bottom line is this, the constitution clearly does not apply to foreigners."

While technically correct because the Constitution applies to the government, this is a very dangerous position to take -- you see, if you say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens then you are saying (e.g.) that the Sixth amendment does not guarantee a trial in open court with the defendant aware of the charges and able to defend himself when it comes to dealing with non-citizens.

This is made even more stark when you take a look at the list of things that citizenship may be lost over -- especially item (7), which says, in part:committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States

So, by that law we see a direct opposition to what our Declaration of Independence says:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

So then we see that the powers that be could try to claim the above law to strip the aforementioned right of the citizens to [re-]institute government and to deny them fair and just hearings.

8- If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?

You mean like Christian Russians after USSR fell instead of jews(perceived victims who had 8 oligarchs snatch up most of Russia's wealth), or Christian Somalis today instead of moslems being brought over via taxpayer dollars by the Refugee Resettlement people? For all the moslems we have taken in at taxpayer expense from the nation that Doctor's Without Borders respects the borders of after fleeing we could have taken in ever Christian so there would be no religious minority.

OT: For those of you who can, please come up with an anti-assassination equivalent of "no more free Wacos." Please.

You have to speak in a language that leftists can under stand. Do you want to be like the gay guy on a Train in DC on July 4? A high on PCP nigger stole his phone, he told him to give it back only to be stabbed to death with a full train watching. Kevin Sutherland's last words where "NOT ALL BLACKS ARE LIKE THAT".

Do you think flower power will work against people that committed the Holodomor? The important part of "no more free wacos" is taking care of the family members if you cant get the targets. Leftists will not give up their plans for your wallet or guns without significant incentive. The illegal alien who sued the white men who saved his life when he drove into water made every 1st responder reevaluate if they would help a brown person when not on duty, but there is no credible threat to leftists when leftists misbehave.

There might come a day (after more jihad attacks on home soil) where sane people demand that Islam lose its very definition as a "religion" and be re-classified, properly, as a "death cult" which presents clear and present danger to the state.

Germany already bans Scientology for a failure to meet a proper definition of religion, no reason why Islam can't be redefined.

No more worries or fretting over religious tolerance if it's not a religion in the first place.

Under the Constitution of 1787, the 1st threat of secession was over the Louisiana Purchase. The 3rd threat of secession was over the annexation of Texas.

In both secession threats, one the arguments was over the introduction of French and Spanish Catholics (Louisiana territory) and Texians/Mexicans (Texas) into the union. The opponents were Federalists from the northeast.

"If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?"

Category error. There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you. I would argue that we have already hit that point anyway- the potential risk can't be that the US law might be turned against Christians because that is the actual fact on the ground today.

Sevron: "There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you."

Right.

But you can go a long way in the right direction by barring people with grievances against you from the top positions of cultural and political influence. I mean, someone has to be doing the gaming or the turning, and if they are outside the cultural and political elite rather than inside it, that helps a lot.

For example: the rules regarding the English monarch and Catholicism. From the point of view of maintaining the independence of the Church of England, not having the monarch's spouse scheming non-stop to see that it's reabsorbed into the Catholic Church is a good idea.

Sevron: "I would argue that we have already hit that point anyway- the potential risk can't be that the US law might be turned against Christians because that is the actual fact on the ground today."

Right.

Obviously the same factors that led to that situation are likely to make it even worse in future, Muslims or no Muslims.

That's why, if you're trying to answer the question, "If we set the precedent to ban immigrants based upon religion, how do we ensure this doesn't slide over to Christians in the future?" "don't import an additional hostile religious / racial / cultural population and elevate them too to positions of great power" is correct, but cannot honestly be a complete answer.

If you want to give an honest, accurate and complete answer, you have to add, "the solution is more democracy," or something like that.

Honest to God, Whitey, I can't make heads or tails out of your response to me. I don't believe I was discourteous, nor was my comment some kind of tricksy twist. You've invented about half of the conversation in your head- for example, I would never say that the solution to any problem was more democracy.

@48 "Category error. There is no way to create a system that can't be gamed or turned against you."

No, it's really not a category error. Here's why: a just law applies [very nearly] to everyone. So, "thou shalt not murder" is not going to be turned against you, and cannot be [w/o perversion of justice], unless you actually go and murder someone... in which case you ought to have the law against you.

Or, as Paul said in 1 Tim:We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,

@53 "Because there's no way they can define murder so that crushing a baby's skull in the womb and vacuuming out the pieces doesn't count."

You should also note how the "constitutional right to privacy" that they found from the "penumbras and emanations" are not applied equally -- to wit: the Afordable Care Act exposes the selfsame medical records, which they claim are protected by constitutional guarantees, to the very government which if forbidden in the case of abortions.

So you can clearly see the contradiction here: either there is a constitutional right to privacy which voids the Affordable Care Act (as the Constitution has not been amended) or else the Affordable Care Act's validity repudiates Roe v. Wade's validity.

Scott Adams also deserves credit for stating the issue as an obvious cost-benefit analysis, which no politician other than Trump has been willing to do. This makes Adams intellectually honest, even if he had come to a different conclusion. None of the current politicians in D.C. has any sense of intellectual honesty at all.

Let me spell this out for all the drooling Me White Me Superior idiots out there.

1. I don't permit ANY monomanias here. If you are going to work your one and only topic into everything, you will be spammed. I don't care if your One True Issue is Jews, Keynesian economics, ancient Greece, evolution, gay sex, or the Founding Fathers. Those are all obsessions of previously banned monomaniacs.

2. The fact that I like something does not mean that I want it all the time. I like chocolate. The fact that I did not want it for dinner tonight does not mean I don't like chocolate, or that I am lying when I say I like chocolate. I should not have to point this out to anyone over the age of seven.

3. Do not even think of telling me what to do on my own blog. That is the best and most certain way to get yourself instantly spammed. If I want your advice, I will ask for it. If I have not asked for your advice, do not offer it.

I've been using Adams' method of analysis for decades. It's a tool for discriminating trains from non-trains.

When I say "Do I like X at least 1/30th as much as I like automobiles" and "~30K Americans die in automobile crashes each year" I am not *advocating for* the the death of 1000 Americans. And neither is he.

Let's see. Let X = civilian strong encryption. Yep. It's worth it.

Let X = Peyote church. Harder, but fuck, OK.

Let X = Islam. NFW.

Don't get triggered, ever, people. It's a weakness. You can be lead around by your rage if you leave the buttons hanging out.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.